United States Martin Knapp v. Lake Shore Michigan Southern Railway Company
| Decision Date | 10 April 1905 |
| Docket Number | No. 251,251 |
| Citation | 49 L.Ed. 870,25 S.Ct. 538,197 U.S. 536 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. MARTIN A. KNAPP, Judson C. Clements, James D. Yoemans, Charles A. Prouty, and Joseph W. Fifer, Interstate Commerce Commissioners, Plffs. in Err., v. LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. L. A. Shaver and Assistant Attorney General McReynolds for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 537-539 intentionally omitted] Mr.George C. Greene for defendant in error.
Petition for mandamus filed in the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Ohio by the Interstate Commerce Commissioners against the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company. The railway company moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the court had no original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus. The motion was granted and the writ dismissed. A certificate was duly made showing that a question of jurisdiction was in issue, and recites that the court acted not only on the motion of the railroad, but on its own motion, in dismissing the petition for want of jurisdiction.
The petition alleges that the railroad company is a corporation created by the laws of the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois, and has its principal place of business in the state of Ohio, and is a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce, and as such is subject to the provisions of the Act of Congress to Regulate Commerce [24 Stat. at L. 379, chap. 104, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3154].
That under § 20 of said act the Interstate Commerce Commission is authorized to require any common carrier subject to the act to make reports of certain matters and things and in pursuance thereof the Commission made an order on the 3d of June, 1903, prescribing the manner and form in which said reports should be made and the contents thereof, and directed each common carrier to file the same on or before the 15th. A copy of the order was served on the railroad company, but the company failed and neglected to make out and return a report in full, in that it failed to set forth in the report made and returned by it the data or information called for, namely, 'the tonnage, ton—mileage, earnings, and receipts per ton per mile on grain, hay, cotton, live stock, dressed meats, anthracite coal, bituminous coal, and lumber carried in carload lots; and that said data or information required by the Commission to be given in said report by respondent is necessary to enable the Commission to perform the duties and carry out the objects for which it was created, in the interest of the public, and that promptness by carriers in furnishing the same on or before the 15th day of September of each year, as required by the Commission, is essential for the purpose, among others, of enabling the Commission to make a full and complete annual report to Congress, which, by § 21 of said Act to Regulate Commerce, is required to be transmitted to said body on or before December 1st of each year.'
It is also alleged that there is no adequate remedy except that afforded by mandamus.
It is admitted that under the judiciary act of 1789 (1 Stat. at L. 73, chap. 20) and the act of 1875, as construed by this court, a circuit court of the United States has no jurisdiction of an original proceeding seeking relief by mandamus. And counsel, not to minimize the admission, quotes the cases in which that has been laid down and the text books which have expressed the doctrine as settled. But it is suggested that under the act of 1887 (24 Stat. at L. 552, chap. 373), a different ruling should be made. No change in language is pointed out which would justify such change in ruling, but we are urged to that radical course in view of the modern development of proceedings by mandamus, and the very great importance of the remedy thereby. We are not impressed by the invocation. We are unable to understand how language conferring jurisdiction on a court can take a new meaning from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Santa Margarita Mut. W. Co. v. State Water Rights Bd.
...Marshall v. Crotty, 1 Cir., 1950, 185 F.2d 622; Updegraff v. Talbott, 4 Cir., 1955, 221 F.2d 342; Knapp v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 1905, 197 U.S. 536, 25 S.Ct. 538, 49 L.Ed. 870. However, the court will look at the substance of the matter and not to form. For example, if in reality the ......
-
Hiawatha Gin Co. v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n
... ... Hiawatha Gin Company for mandamus. After denial of ... application to ... no circumstances, states a cause of action. The petition does ... not ... 623; Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 30 L.Ed. 743; Knapp v ... Railroad 49 L.Ed. 870, Vol. 13, Roses ... 696, ... 32 A. L. R. 786, the United States supreme court had occasion ... to pass ... ...
-
Grace Line v. Panama Canal Company
...Wood, 7 Cranch 504, 11 U.S. 504, 3 L.Ed. 420; Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 120 U.S. 450, 7 S.Ct. 633, 30 L.Ed. 743; Knapp v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 197 U.S. 536, 25 S.Ct. 538, 49 L.Ed. 870; Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. Hager, 203 U.S. 109, 27 S.Ct. 24, 51 L.Ed. 111. The lower federal courts have......
-
IOWA CITY-MONTEZUMA RAILROAD SHIP. ASS'N v. United States
...583 (7th Cir. 1967); Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. Republican Co., 188 F.Supp. 813 (D. Mass.1960); cf., also, Knapp v. Lake Shore Ry., 197 U.S. 536, 25 S.Ct. 538, 49 L.Ed. 870 (1905); Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch (5 U.S.) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), even where the relief sought is for an alleged......